[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bpfk] polysemy of {nai}

To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: [bpfk] polysemy of {nai}
From: la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 22:52:30 -0800 (PST)
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:message-id:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=KLNU6ILCujNZQxeS+X4KxVCfPmHRWbaWJqinoPAngpU=; b=PppMWO+J+BsHjTig4EoC7TkH65fDjw5IpyEMIvxpuhL5m741t/X0hBx4VKUfAwP+n/ uAANkfKO2JXK5tTFfImlqmmmzB4nJrHEdxxeEPQ/UUCGbqcAhqJOeEzAXWl5Lr1EydXb pzlfWqjFLbRf8MGXJtLL+Kt00yrlRlciL3Eq2mrik/vCYZ4+yq5vu16NjK2BmlswkM9T 7EtYFrylJSKpgVVySfsMJ6Mcm71vaCnna5zpWIj7FDV9P+DiFD6yK49OzTouWrRGwXPw hXlEVbHmqHESDCs3lrWxZdH5JrrE238hK5YgIfw1AR4c3hU/1iG4ItlfpdB+VGsIlpV9 2mDQ==
List-archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en_US>
List-help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list+help@googlegroups.com>
List-id: <bpfk-list.googlegroups.com>
List-post: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>
List-subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+972099695765+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com
Reply-to: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com

Even the current grammar has two meanings of {nai}.

Such "polysemy" (although lacking ambiguity in any case) might lead to inconvenience for newbies.

Why {nai} actually means

1. to'e (UInai)

2. na (NU NAI = NU NA KU ZOhU, the same with connectives and BAI)?

The proposal http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Move+NAI+to+CAI adds the third meaning (na'e).

Next question is why {nai} should move to CAI and then to UI when UI have no truth value?

It puts {nai} into strange relation with {na'i} that is already in UI.

If so why having {to'e}, {no'e} and {na'e} and if they can be always optionally replaced with {nai}, {cu'i} and some experimental cmavo (e.g. {ne'e}) correspondingly?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bpfk-list/-/YD3qRWa0J68J.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [bpfk] polysemy of {nai}
  - From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>

Prev by Date: Re: [bpfk] Re: Shapado as elephant?
Next by Date: Re: [bpfk] polysemy of {nai}
Previous by thread: Re: [bpfk] Technical problems with @lojban.org list emails.
Next by thread: Re: [bpfk] polysemy of {nai}
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread